[Athens]

Marc Emery's U.S. prosecutor urges pot legalization - British Columbia - CBC News

I find it interesting the amount of high level people now backing the legalization of pot. I've always been for it and have always thought it was wasted tax money to fight it and more wasted opportunity to tax it. Vancouver has been suffering a lot of gang related violence that all stems from the pot trade. And you know prohibition is a bad idea when the biggest proponents for it are the gangsters profiting from it.

But like John McKay says in this article in order for prohibition to work you need the majority of the public to be for it. And in the case of pot its hard to say this is the case.

I do find myself with a respect for the guy. Even though he prosecuted Mark Emery for breaking US law (even though he was not in the US, thank you Harper you bastard) his ability to do his job objectively while at the same time having well thought out opinions about something is nice to see.

The backers of this is pretty impressive

Stop the Violence BC | Coalition Members

Its time to end the prohibition and to legalize and tax pot. Would be interesting to see the arguments against this.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

1. Drugs are bad.
2. See item 1.

Though I do kind of want them to legalize pot if
1. Employers are still allowed to make drug screening for it part of employment requirements.
2. Health care plans are not required to cover any issues arising from its use.
3. ERs are allowed to turn away people who can't pay for any issues arising from its use.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

1. Drugs are bad.
2. See item 1.

Though I do kind of want them to legalize pot if
1. Employers are still allowed to make drug screening for it part of employment requirements.
2. Health care plans are not required to cover any issues arising from its use.
3. ERs are allowed to turn away people who can't pay for any issues arising from its use.

Holy fnck, are you kidding?

Would you permit hospitals to turn away people who use alcohol? Would you permit health care plans not to cover issues arising from alcohol use? What kind of country do you want to live in? Especially since pot use has a very small health impact compared to alcohol.

As for employer drug screening, that should be banned. Pot users are no greater risk than alcohol users. More over, drug screening is inherently flawed, because dangerous addictions like Oxy don't turn up, but harmless pot usage shows up for a month. It's a ridiculous requirement.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

As for employer drug screening, that should be banned. Pot users are no greater risk than alcohol users. More over, drug screening is inherently flawed, because dangerous addictions like Oxy don't turn up, but harmless pot usage shows up for a month. It's a ridiculous requirement.

I'd be for employer drug screening of crazy addictive drugs like meth or coke or crack, mainly because these can lead people to do things that can damage a company such as stealing stuff for drug money or perhaps forcing higher premiums on health insurance (although in my perfect world we wouldn't have employer-based health care), but then again, like you said, alcohol can be crazy addictive too, so I dunno... Alcohol is cheaper than these other drugs though.

[subego]

Dunno about meth, but coke and crack are water soluble, so the metabolize really quickly. You'd need to do some sort of hair sample test, which isn't cheap.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

What kind of country do you want to live in?

I want to live in a country were I don't have to pay for other peoples bad decisions.

If you're willing to accept that you'll end up working as a short order cook or a philosophy professor then go ahead and smoke pot.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Dunno about meth, but coke and crack are water soluble, so the metabolize really quickly. You'd need to do some sort of hair sample test, which isn't cheap.

Hairs from where? I'm just wondering if employers will ever be examining my scrotum hair.

[OAW]

It's absolutely silly for marijuana to be illegal while alcohol is not. The latter is far more dangerous, addictive, and destructive. Now having said that there are political realities that causes such stupidity to persist. So as a first step it would be a good idea to decriminalize the possession of marijuana in small quantities instead of legalizing it outright. That way the pointless interdiction efforts could be focused on large dealers.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's absolutely silly for marijuana to be illegal while alcohol is not. The latter is far more dangerous, addictive, and destructive. Now having said that there are political realities that causes such stupidity to persist. So as a first step it would be a good idea to decriminalize the possession of marijuana in small quantities instead of legalizing it outright. That way the pointless interdiction efforts could be focused on large dealers.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I want to live in a country were I don't have to pay for other peoples bad decisions.

That country does not exist.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

1. Drugs are bad.
2. See item 1.

Though I do kind of want them to legalize pot if
1. Employers are still allowed to make drug screening for it part of employment requirements.
2. Health care plans are not required to cover any issues arising from its use.
3. ERs are allowed to turn away people who can't pay for any issues arising from its use.

So you really have no idea what Pot is then....

Tell me, do you know that caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, and some can even argue sugar are drugs? And I agree drugs are bad, including caffeine, alcohol, tobacco and sugar. But seems you accept a double standard on drugs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

So you really have no idea what Pot is then....

Tell me, do you know that caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, and some can even argue sugar are drugs? And I agree drugs are bad, including caffeine, alcohol, tobacco and sugar. But seems you accept a double standard on drugs.

I think your sarcasm meter is broken.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hairs from where? I'm just wondering if employers will ever be examining my scrotum hair.

It depends. How long is your sackbut?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'd be for employer drug screening of crazy addictive drugs like meth or coke or crack, mainly because these can lead people to do things that can damage a company such as stealing stuff for drug money or perhaps forcing higher premiums on health insurance (although in my perfect world we wouldn't have employer-based health care), but then again, like you said, alcohol can be crazy addictive too, so I dunno... Alcohol is cheaper than these other drugs though.

That's a terrible reason for drug screening, because they might steal. I can accept drug screening for certain jobs like Airline pilots, fork lift drivers, school bus and transit drivers. But im totally against general drug screening and would be totally against the reasons you quoted. And honestly im not really in favor of any drug screening outside of accident investigations because it takes away a level of trust on people. If you don't trust people to do a job why are they being hired in the first place.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I want to live in a country were I don't have to pay for other peoples bad decisions.

If you're willing to accept that you'll end up working as a short order cook or a philosophy professor then go ahead and smoke pot.

You already pay a high price from prohibition. Insurance rates from thefts, murders and injuries in the medical system. Law enforcement for trying to enforce prohibition. Court and Jail costs for prosecuting them. You pay way more then you think because of prohibition of a personal activity.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's absolutely silly for marijuana to be illegal while alcohol is not. The latter is far more dangerous, addictive, and destructive. Now having said that there are political realities that causes such stupidity to persist. So as a first step it would be a good idea to decriminalize the possession of marijuana in small quantities instead of legalizing it outright. That way the pointless interdiction efforts could be focused on large dealers.

OAW

Decriminalization has no positive effects. The drug dealers still make there money. The state does not collect taxes on it. Still remains unregulated. Buyers are still in contact with pushers who would like to see users buy more profitable drugs like meth and coke.

At least through legalization you can restrict sale, collect taxes, end the profits for the dealers, remove the contact between those that want to buy pot but don't want to be pushed into harder drugs and standardize and regulate the product itself. I see zero advantage to decriminalization outside of saving a few teens from going to jail.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I can accept drug screening for certain jobs like Airline pilots, fork lift drivers, school bus and transit drivers.

One of these things is not like the others...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

One of these things is not like the others...

???

[BLAZE_MkIV]

But seems you accept a double standard on drugs.

Of course I have a double standard on drugs. If you'd stop using drugs as short hand for controlled substances it would be obvious. There are drugs you can buy over the counter that are worse for you than alcohol and marijuana but they aren't illegal. I wonder why?

So you really have no idea what Pot is then....

The degree of my ignorance on specifics of "Pot" have no bearing on my position.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Decriminalization has no positive effects. The drug dealers still make there money. The state does not collect taxes on it. Still remains unregulated. Buyers are still in contact with pushers who would like to see users buy more profitable drugs like meth and coke.

At least through legalization you can restrict sale, collect taxes, end the profits for the dealers, remove the contact between those that want to buy pot but don't want to be pushed into harder drugs and standardize and regulate the product itself. I see zero advantage to decriminalization outside of saving a few teens from going to jail.

I disagree. The advantage is that the state isn't wasting limited resources trying to interdict, prosecute, and/or incarcerate people for a couple of ounces of weed. I'm not suggesting that decriminalization has as many advantages as outright legalization. I'm just saying that the latter is politically unfeasible right now so the former would be a good first step.

OAW

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Of course I have a double standard on drugs. If you'd stop using drugs as short hand for controlled substances it would be obvious. There are drugs you can buy over the counter that are worse for you than alcohol and marijuana but they aren't illegal. I wonder why?


The degree of my ignorance on specifics of "Pot" have no bearing on my position.

And what exactly is your problem with Pot (besides being susceptible to propaganda and misinformation campaigns)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That country does not exist.

Do you think it SHOULD exist ?
If you had the power to make it happen, would you ?

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And what exactly is your problem with Pot (besides being susceptible to propaganda and misinformation campaigns)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...le_I_drugs_(US)

[subego]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Of course I have a double standard on drugs. If you'd stop using drugs as short hand for controlled substances it would be obvious. There are drugs you can buy over the counter that are worse for you than alcohol and marijuana but they aren't illegal. I wonder why?

Because lawmakers are smart and always do what's best.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...le_I_drugs_(US)

So you actually buy into the bullsh!t that pot deserves to be class 1, but more dangerous and addictive drugs like morphine, oxycodone, opium, meth, and cocaine only need to be class 2? Why are you so inclined to believe that crap?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Do you think it SHOULD exist ?
If you had the power to make it happen, would you ?

-t

You ask a lot of leading questions you know.

No, in a perfect world people wouldn't have to pay for the bad decisions of others, because people wouldn't be making bad decisions in the first place. There would also be abundant free delicious zero calorie ice cream too dispensed from our faucets, created by the happiness of cats.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It depends. How long is your sackbut?

It depends on how well it has been greased.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It depends on how well it has been greased.

Nothing worse than a squeaky sackbut.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

So you actually buy into the bullsh!t that pot deserves to be class 1, but more dangerous and addictive drugs like morphine, oxycodone, opium, meth, and cocaine only need to be class 2? Why are you so inclined to believe that crap?

Wether or not is bullshit is a value and or medical judgement I've already stated I wasn't knowledgable enough to make. The punishments related to different drugs is also a value judgement that's won't waste everyone's time telling you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I want to live in a country were I don't have to pay for other peoples bad decisions.

If you're willing to accept that you'll end up working as a short order cook or a philosophy professor then go ahead and smoke pot.

Or you could end up as a retired wealthy guy who does very little but play and do charity work. Oh, and take care of his new offspring, which is a lot more fun than he ever imagined. Not that he smokes it around the baby, such activities now only happen outside or in the mancave.

All good things in moderation, that's the key to life.

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's absolutely silly for marijuana to be illegal while alcohol is not. The latter is far more dangerous, addictive, and destructive. Now having said that there are political realities that causes such stupidity to persist. So as a first step it would be a good idea to decriminalize the possession of marijuana in small quantities instead of legalizing it outright. That way the pointless interdiction efforts could be focused on large dealers.

OAW

Yup.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...le_I_drugs_(US)

That's nice, but you evaded the question. What is it about pot you personally, you as a individual from your own mind make you against it.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Athens 

That's nice, but you evaded the question. What is it about pot you personally, you as a individual from your own mind make you against it.

Well lets see...

The degree of my ignorance on specifics of "Pot" have no bearing on my position.

...a value and or medical judgement I've already stated I wasn't knowledgable enough to make.

And if all of that is too difficult to understand

Drugs are bad.

All these chemical compounds you like so much, caffeine, nicotine, morphine, etc.. Do you know what they are? Why the plants produce them? Let me add a few of their sister chemicals to the list, cyanide, ricin.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You ask a lot of leading questions you know.

I know, 2 is a lot. Thanks for trying to answer.
In the future, I'll stick with rethorical questions, then you don't have to answer.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

All these chemical compounds you like so much, caffeine, nicotine, morphine, etc.. Do you know what they are? Why the plants produce them? Let me add a few of their sister chemicals to the list, cyanide, ricin.

Right. So, you're equally opposed to the use of Caffeine, Nicotine and Marijuana? That's fair and consistent. It's the people who blast pot while defending cigarettes that I get a kick out of.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

All these chemical compounds you like so much, caffeine, nicotine, morphine, etc.. Do you know what they are? Why the plants produce them? Let me add a few of their sister chemicals to the list, cyanide, ricin.

You forgot serotonin.

[Nergol]

You can walk into any 7-11 in this country and buy cigarettes and beer, but if you buy a cigarette that makes you drunk, we throw you in prison.

Well, that makes perfect sense, now doesn't it?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Nergol 

Well, that makes perfect sense, now doesn't it?

Did i miss something? When were we told the law has to make sense.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Holy fnck, are you kidding?

Would you permit hospitals to turn away people who use alcohol? Would you permit health care plans not to cover issues arising from alcohol use? What kind of country do you want to live in? Especially since pot use has a very small health impact compared to alcohol.

As for employer drug screening, that should be banned. Pot users are no greater risk than alcohol users. More over, drug screening is inherently flawed, because dangerous addictions like Oxy don't turn up, but harmless pot usage shows up for a month. It's a ridiculous requirement.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'd be for employer drug screening of crazy addictive drugs like meth or coke or crack, mainly because these can lead people to do things that can damage a company such as stealing stuff for drug money or perhaps forcing higher premiums on health insurance (although in my perfect world we wouldn't have employer-based health care), but then again, like you said, alcohol can be crazy addictive too, so I dunno... Alcohol is cheaper than these other drugs though.

As mentioned in another thread, there are people getting fired for refusing blood screening, or positive results, for nicotine. They are getting fired for using a legal substance, at home.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Well lets see...


And if all of that is too difficult to understand


All these chemical compounds you like so much, caffeine, nicotine, morphine, etc.. Do you know what they are? Why the plants produce them? Let me add a few of their sister chemicals to the list, cyanide, ricin.

So basically you have no ability to explain why you are against it except for the fact that its illegal. Bravo. Was not long ago that a white person kissing a black person was illegal. Was not long ago that ok maybe it was long ago but masturbation was illegal. And it really wouldn't shock me if some states still had that illegal lol

One of my co-workers is against legalization and he was able to actually back up his position with a legitimate issue. Smoking Weed on the street can cause secondary exposure to those around the person that does not smoke causing unintended high's. And no instant road side test like with booze. That said both of those can be mitigated so I still support it. But I hope that example helps you see what I mean by not being able to explain your position beyond OH because its illegal.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Did i miss something? When were we told the law has to make sense.

So if tomorrow Obama made all firearms illegal you would hand over your guns to the nearest police station for immediate compliance?

The term Sheep applies....

[Athens]

Happy 4/20 Day

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Athens 

So if tomorrow Obama made all firearms illegal you would hand over your guns to the nearest police station for immediate compliance?

The term Sheep applies....

If tomorrow they made crack legal would you immediately start smoking it?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Nothing worse than a squeaky sackbut.

When it isn't properly greased you can't really get it out all the way.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I know, 2 is a lot. Thanks for trying to answer.
In the future, I'll stick with rethorical questions, then you don't have to answer.

-t

You know I meant this in a general way, right?

[besson3c]

I think that all drugs should be decriminalized, and taxed like crazy. This way, there would be enough competition that the prices would probably be low enough that not as many people would have to turn to crime to sustain their habit, the black market disappears, and the government can profit from drug use enough to do positive things like provide health care to its people.

There might be a temporary increase in drug related illness/accidents, but I think this spike will eventually return to fairly normal levels over time. After all, if you really want to get high you've been able to do this for years with alcohol, or homemade meth. I don't think people "accidentally" get high on stuff like this just because it is cheap/available.

Additionally, for all of you free market fans, maybe stores interested in selling these drugs would have to pay for a license, but I think that even without one there would eventually be drug stores that would be going after a positive image selling drugs that (mostly) help people, and drug stores that don't, and that people that are interested in steering clear of the addictive/harmful drug scene would just self-select where they shop.

In fact, I kind of wonder how you can actually be a fan of the free market yet be for the government deciding what drugs to not only make unavailable, but illegal.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Capitalism is amoral. It kind of has to be since the motivator is seeks to exploit is greed. The addictive nature of most drugs makes them immune to market forces. Once your addicted you'll pay any price for them. An we know already that people are incapable of making good decisions about drugs legal or not.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Happy 4/20 Day

Amen to that.

[Chongo]

The problem with taxing marijuana is that unlike tobacco, you can grow it anywhere. If you can't control who grows it, or where it's grown, it's difficult to tax

[Demonhood]

Just do what they proposed with the California law that was narrowly defeated - you can grow up to a certain amount for private use.
People have the ability to grow food for themselves, but the vast majority do not. Most people would still choose the convenience of buying a product grown and prepared by professionals.

[abbaZaba]

how would the regulators deal with people who don't want to smoke but may live above someone who does? how do you deal with people getting contact highs from excessive smoking? what if the person is hotboxing their apartment with a party or something? seems like it'd be a lot harder to contain smoke that gets you stoned from getting to people who don't want to get stoned.